Recent Comments

You also have to look at the in-state / out-of-state breakdown. Some schools preferentially admit in state students. I went to William and Mary, where it is substantially more difficult to be admitted from out of state (they are required to admit 80% instate students and only 20% out of state, IIRC). Your chances of getting in as a state resident could be substantially better than as an out of state student. Also, FWIW William and Mary admits about 32% of applicants - pretty close to UM.

It's not a hard test. Like the GRE, it's no harder than the kind of questions you can answer with a reasonable high school education. Then again, having tutored college athletes before, it's not the least bit surprisng that people bomb it. America is, by and large, a pretty stupid country.

I'm more impressed that this hypothetical miracle team held OSU under 10 points twice. Michigan has held OSU under 20 only twice in the past decade, and lost both times. Michigan might beat OSU this year, maybe twice, but I think someone has spiked the Kool-Aid WRT the defensive performance.

JMHO, Denard's passing ability is entirely predicated on the run (right now). After watching him play this season, it became pretty obvious that having him drop back and try to read coverages was (more often than not) unsuccessful. He was most successful off the PA - in particular, off of the PA QB Sweep (when the safety came down into the box, the slot ran a post behind him for an easy TD - see the ND game).

Whatever offense you run needs to have an element of the QB PA. Until Denard shows the ability read and beat coverages, this is strictly necessary for success.

Next year will be interesting. Both Hawk and Barnett are true Mikes - neither of them effectively plays the strong side ILB in the 3-4 (too much pass coverage requirement). Hawk has shown that he's every bit as good as Barnett at Mike...so who plays? No point in putting one or the other at SILB if that's not their true position, especially with Bishop and Chillar playing so well there.

TCU proved that if you can convince Brett Bielema not to run the ball when his running backs are averaging 6.9 and 6.0 YPC (as Clay and Ball were), you can win. Bielema is also susceptible to ruses involving magic beans.

I see your point of view, and I think I understand where you're coming from. This is my point of view:

Jim Tressel has one of two options: he can play the guys or he can sit them. Now, if he decides to sit the guys then, in effect, they are serving a one game suspension because most of them will just go pro, completely circumventing the NCAA's ruling. There are obviously pros and cons to this; as you say, it shows the players that the coach will take steps to punish players. However, it also shows that the NCAA has, esentially, no power to punish players who break the rules. Now, there is also the matter of whose rules were broken here. Certainly any NCAA rule should be considered a team rule - that essentially goes without saying. On the other hand, it's a steep argument to make that the players did something that hurt themselves or the team or...well, anybody. Personally, I'm don't think that the players should be allowed to play in the bowl game, but it's my opinion that the NCAA should suspend them for the game - not the team. Why? Well, because they haven't done anything to hurt the team. They broke an NCAA rule. The NCAA should have the spine to enforce their own rules. It's not Jim Tressel's responsibility to enforce the NCAA's rules in lieu of the NCAA doing their job.

That's why I think that this is the best compromise that he can make. Assuming that the players keep their promise (big assumption, of course) then he's doing a couple of things. He's telling the players that they have to pay the price for breaking the rules (by forcing them to take their NCAA medicine) and he's not usurping (or supplanting, whichever you prefer) the NCAA's authority to enforce their own rules. Now, I totally understand that some people would see this as a circuitous, self serving route to getting the guys to play in the game. I would, however, point of that I'm actually in favor of the NCAA suspending the guys. I do not, however, think that the team has any duty to do what the NCAA refuses to do - especially when this rule is arguably unethical and illogical (although that's another discussion). So I think that Tressel is making a reasonable compromise (again, assuming the guys actually honor their promise).

So I'm not going to argue that you're wrong or anything. Opinions are inherently subjective. I do, however, think that there are good arguments to be made on both sides.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are not actually responding to my question about why asking the guys to return and, you know, actually serve the suspension reflects poorly on Jim Tressel. You're just reiterating the talking point that you've been trying to bait me with for the past week. Well, I guess everybody needs a hobby.

Oh, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you meant that OSU had known about the sale for over a year (and that doesn't appear to be the case). The players knew about the violation - and that was already out there in the public domain. I mean, that's the reason why they got a 5 game rather than just a 4 game suspension. Maybe Mark May reported that wrong, I dunno. It wouldn't surprise me, since he's basically a worthless asshole.

Well, but isn't that the point? Teams don't "reload" for long periods of time. It's just too damn hard. Sooner or later it's going to stop (and it will stop at OSU sooner or later - this is essentially the golden age here). That's all I was saying: very, very few teams do it and to claim that Michigan just needs to get back to prior form is a bit misleading. Also, the bowl argument is a little spurious, considering that OSU has only lost to top 5 teams in major bowls (and still has a winning record in bowls over that span, anyway).